S M U Athletics Losing Millions !

[MeanGreen61]

Posted from the muts board by SpaceRaider

SMU athletics deficit $56.7 million over four years

Mark Norris, Senior Staff Writer, mnorris@smu.edu

Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: News

Media Credit: John Schreiber

Over the past four years, the SMU athletic department has lost $56.7 million.

The department is projected to lose $16.8 million in 2008 and $16.3 million in 2009.

If those projections hold up, the SMU athletic department will have lost almost $90 million over six years, figures far larger than previously published estimates

SMU ATHLETICS DEFICIENT $56.7 million

http://media.www.smudailycampus.com/media/...ollegeheadlines

Edited May 7, 2008 by MeanGreen61

[Eagle1855]

I'll take "hemorrhaging" for $800.

[forevereagle]

I'll take "hemorrhaging" for $800.

How do you lose this kind of money and justify paying a new HC $2 million per year?

[LongJim]

SMU donors find that kind of money in the crevices of their buttocks with regularity.

[GMoney]

Their travel has gotta be a part of this equation with only Houston and Tulsa being close. But hey, lets lead the charge to keep NT out of CUSA - that must have helped.

Edited May 7, 2008 by GMoney

[AnotherEagleFan]

Their travel has gotta be a part of this equation with only Houston and Tulsa being close. But hey, lets lead the charge to keep NT out of CUSA - that must have helped.

And Memphis and Tulane and Southern Miss and UAB and Rice.......

I say lets kick out SMU and add UNT.... ANd while we are at it lets give UCF the boot and bring back TCU.

[SilverEagle]

SMU donors find that kind of money in the crevices of their buttocks with regularity.

Note to self. Always wear gloves if an SMU grad ever wants to hand you some money.

[Baby Arm!]

Since when does an athletic department have to make a profit? Don't get me wrong, it's nice if they do. But why do we hold the profit standard only to the athletic department?

I wonder how much money the chemistry department made during the same period? or the history department?

It's a college, it's not there to make a profit (unless it's DeVry). It's mission is to educate, and that happens on athletic fields as well as in the classroom

[forevereagle]

SMU donors find that kind of money in the crevices of their buttocks with regularity.

That is what I call dirty money.

[forevereagle]

Since when does an athletic department have to make a profit? Don't get me wrong, it's nice if they do. But why do we hold the profit standard only to the athletic department?

I wonder how much money the chemistry department made during the same period? or the history department?

It's a college, it's not there to make a profit (unless it's DeVry). It's mission is to educate, and that happens on athletic fields as well as in the classroom

I wouldn't say that they need to make a profit, but getting close to breaking even (or even getting close) would be something to work towards.

[greenminer]

Since when does an athletic department have to make a profit? Don't get me wrong, it's nice if they do. But why do we hold the profit standard only to the athletic department?

I wonder how much money the chemistry department made during the same period? or the history department?

It's a college, it's not there to make a profit (unless it's DeVry). It's mission is to educate, and that happens on athletic fields as well as in the classroom

Universities have educational missions, but don't be naive: they are in the business of making money.

Forget I even said that: the money has to come and go somewhere. If one department is so much in the hole, then someone else has to make up for it or the university will collapse. It's not like someone just keeps saying "forget the debt! Keep taking our goods and services because your an institution of higher learning."

[Go_UTA]

Since when does an athletic department have to make a profit? Don't get me wrong, it's nice if they do. But why do we hold the profit standard only to the athletic department?

I wonder how much money the chemistry department made during the same period? or the history department?

It's a college, it's not there to make a profit (unless it's DeVry). It's mission is to educate, and that happens on athletic fields as well as in the classroom

The difference is that athletics isn't the mission of the university. I know, it takes on that importance is some people's eyes, but, fact is, we have our universities to educate and create knowledge. I concede that athletics, done right, is a great thing. It brings notoriety and increases spirit. But, it isn't the mission of the university. Using the examples given, the chemistry and history department are the missions of the universities. So, a comparison of athletics to those or other academic departments isn't valid.

Almost all athletic departments lose money. Some more than others. It is up to each institution to decide what is tolerable. However, each institution (administration) should be aware of the true costs and trade-offs, even if they don't publish them. They need to know this in order to evaluate the programs and trade-offs, because large deficits do drain resources from the teaching or research efforts, or both.

SMU's deficit sounds like a hell of a lot to me. For whatever success they enjoy in athletics, they pay a dear price for it. I have a feeling the release of these numbers is going to create a lot of internal criticism and moral problems for them.

[emmitt01]

For whatever success they enjoy in athletics,

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Baby Arm!]

The difference is that athletics isn't the mission of the university. I know, it takes on that importance is some people's eyes, but, fact is, we have our universities to educate and create knowledge. I concede that athletics, done right, is a great thing. It brings notoriety and increases spirit. But, it isn't the mission of the university. Using the examples given, the chemistry and history department are the missions of the universities. So, a comparison of athletics to those or other academic departments isn't valid.

Almost all athletic departments lose money. Some more than others. It is up to each institution to decide what is tolerable. However, each institution (administration) should be aware of the true costs and trade-offs, even if they don't publish them. They need to know this in order to evaluate the programs and trade-offs, because large deficits do drain resources from the teaching or research efforts, or both.

SMU's deficit sounds like a hell of a lot to me. For whatever success they enjoy in athletics, they pay a dear price for it. I have a feeling the release of these numbers is going to create a lot of internal criticism and moral problems for them.

Look, Im not saying that the losses SMU encounters are acceptable or that they are being good stewards of their money. I'm just tired of the double standard that athletic departments face on cost and profit compared to other departments in the University. To argue that athletics is not part of the mission of a university is faulty. Funny, I had alway thought that "University" came from the Greek ideal of a universal education. Teaching all subjects and educating the whole person.. mind, body, and spirit.

But hey, if there are no lessons being learned on the fields of athletic endeavor, than why have athletics at all? Heck, let's scrap the Phys. Ed departments while we're at it.

I've hit the big 4-O and it's been 20 years since I've seen the inside of a football huddle. But there are lessons I learned inside that huddle that still serve me everyday. Something happens inside of huddles. You have a crazy coach yelling at you, fans screamming, 11 other guys trying to stop you from what you're trying to accomplish, but you learn you're not going to get anywhere unless you help the guys next to you. When they win, you win. You learn what it's like to be in a complete meritocracy. You are valued by your contributions to the community effort, nothing else. You don't have time for rich vs. poor, black vs white. All you have time for is helping each other. In that effort men become brothers inside huddles.

But I guess that kind of thing isn't part of a unversity's mission

[Go_UTA]

Look, Im not saying that the losses SMU encounters are acceptable or that they are being good stewards of their money. I'm just tired of the double standard that athletic departments face on cost and profit compared to other departments in the University. To argue that athletics is not part of the mission of a university is faulty. Funny, I had alway thought that "University" came from the Greek ideal of a universal education. Teaching all subjects and educating the whole person.. mind, body, and spirit.

But hey, if there are no lessons being learned on the fields of athletic endeavor, than why have athletics at all? Heck, let's scrap the Phys. Ed departments while we're at it.

I've hit the big 4-O and it's been 20 years since I've seen the inside of a football huddle. But there are lessons I learned inside that huddle that still serve me everyday. Something happens inside of huddles. You have a crazy coach yelling at you, fans screamming, 11 other guys trying to stop you from what you're trying to accomplish, but you learn you're not going to get anywhere unless you help the guys next to you. When they win, you win. You learn what it's like to be in a complete meritocracy. You are valued by your contributions to the community effort, nothing else. You don't have time for rich vs. poor, black vs white. All you have time for is helping each other. In that effort men become brothers inside huddles.

But I guess that kind of thing isn't part of a unversity's mission

Baby Arm, you are indeed waxing in nostalgia and idealism. Hey, I believe in idealism, too, but you have to be a realist, too. The kinds of learning experiences you are writing about for the athletes themselves "in the huddle," so to speak, can be accomplished without multi-million dollar spending deficits and insane facilities arms races. To suggest the two must go together isn't true at all. And, of course, athletic departments must be held to a different standard than the chemistry department. It's not an academic department. A successful athletic department is all well, good, and helpful, and some level of deficit spending is usually tolerated. But, to suggest the athletic department is part of the core mission of the university just isn't true.

[GreenAlums]

Baby Arm, you are indeed waxing in nostalgia and idealism. Hey, I believe in idealism, too, but you have to be a realist, too. The kinds of learning experiences you are writing about for the athletes themselves "in the huddle," so to speak, can be accomplished without multi-million dollar spending deficits and insane facilities arms races. To suggest the two must go together isn't true at all. And, of course, athletic departments must be held to a different standard than the chemistry department. It's not an academic department. A successful athletic department is all well, good, and helpful, and some level of deficit spending is usually tolerated. But, to suggest the athletic department is part of the core mission of the university just isn't true.

Now Go_UTA...be truthful...did you or would you have voted to reinstate the football program at UTA? I'm sort of just teasing you but this is said like a true non-football school follower Athletics teaches disciplie and leadership in college just as well as it does in high school. Different students benefit at a different level. If you can get in to Harvard and could afford it you probably wouldn't have UTA nor UNT as your first choice. Somewhre in there is a twisted bit of logic, all the while trying to remain politically correct.

[Go_UTA]

Now Go_UTA...be truthful...did you or would you have voted to reinstate the football program at UTA? I'm sort of just teasing you but this is said like a true non-football school follower

Good one! Yeah, but, still, you know that I'm right!

But, to answer your good natured tease, let me just say that I would personally support whatever my university decided to put on the court or field. But, I would strongly prefer that it be done right without sucking millions and millions every year from what we already have. (And, remember, we are now blocks from 2 professional sports franchises...don't think that doesn't make a difference.)

As an aside, as much as I enjoy athletics, I am most proud of the growth of the university as a research institution, and I don't want anything to side-track that momentum. In round numbers, in 2001 or so we were doing about $16 million a year in research, and in 2007 we did $40 million or so. It has been a straight trend up almost every year. I expect these numbers to keep moving upward toward $100 million a year within a reasonable time frame. This is and will make the reputation of the university. And, this is where our natural strength is. All this said, I am looking forward to a new facility for b-ball (please, someday!) and more success on the court!

And, Babyarm, I'm not trying to tick you off, and admire your devotion to UNT...and your enjoyment of athletics! It is a lot of fun.

[Arkstfan]

While I believe that athletic departments should be run in a fiscally responsible manner and should not be a drain on the overall mission of the university, it is very hard to quantify the true value of an athletic department.

Athletics raises the profile of the school.

They tend to raise enrollment. Remember that of the 200 or so scholarships awarded at I-A school that only about 100 to 120 are full rides. The rest are split among the rest of the 300 or more student athletes. Those students will attend by paying out of their own/family pocket (directly or borrow money to do so) or will get federal grants to pay their way. In addition to those students there will be those who will attend to be in band or dance team or cheerleading plus the kids that just happen to have been swayed by their interest in sports.

Athletics help keep alumni connected to the campus which should make fund-raising easier. I serve on the alumni board at Arkansas State. We get some complaints about tying so many alumni events to athletic events but we've found that by doing that we have increased participation and increased the number of due paying members.

What concerns me is the athletic departments that make a profit.

If you look through the NCAA enforcement database the most profitable schools are far more likely to have had NCAA enforcement actions against them.

Those schools are the ones most likely to have student athletes with off-field legal problems.

A profitable athletic department is hard to control. They don't need the school's money and the program will likely have a lot of win at any cost boosters with great political and financial clout to squeeze a president or chancellor who tries to rein in the department.

[Go_UTA]

The truly profitable athletic departments are few in number, and occupy rarified air that the great majority don't and never will. We are talking about the UT Austins of the world.

Yeah, those departments seem more like semi-pro outfits.

[Quoner]

The truly profitable athletic departments are few in number, and occupy rarified air that the great majority don't and never will. We are talking about the UT Austins of the world.

Yeah, those departments seem more like semi-pro outfits.

I don't have a link, but according to the 2006-2007 Fulks' Report, only 19 college athletic departments in the country made money. I think in 2003, it was something like 25 or 26.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I don't have a link, but according to the 2006-2007 Fulks' Report, only 19 college athletic departments in the country made money. I think in 2003, it was something like 25 or 26.

---On the surface this is likely very true.....BUT.... college athletics also causes people to contribute back to their schools in many other departments. This just can't be truely evaluated. Check out our donations to any department and then compare them with UT or A&M or other school our size with a high-profile athletic program.. Athletics is also cheap advertising... UTA was identical to us in size when I was in college (about 13,000) ... they have grown very little compared to us since dropping football..... Our enrollment has increased more rapidly since going back to I-A. I also think it help graduates in getting jobs as well when people have actually heard of the college.

Edited May 8, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--Funny SMU story.... until lately there was a rusty looking beat-up car (1977?) that I regularly saw drivng around town with a fairly good-looking SMU sticker in the window (not that old a sticker) . I guess he thought he was advertising his alma-mater....... personally I thought it was making a statement about what an SMU education would do for a person.....LOL... Haven't seen it lately... guess the car doesn't run anymore....hahaha.

Edited May 8, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I don't have a link, but according to the 2006-2007 Fulks' Report, only 19 college athletic departments in the country made money. I think in 2003, it was something like 25 or 26.

Unless someone is falsifying reports to the federal government, there were only 37 Division 1-A universities that DIDN'T show a profit from athletics in 2006. All institutions report athletic revenues and expenses to the U.S. Department of Education to determine that each institution is complying with the (Gender) Equity in Athletics.

While none show losses, it's obvious that if the revenue exactly equals the expenses that the institution has made up the deficit. Further, 23 of those 37 were BCS schools. Four of those (California, Purdue, Texas Tech, and Southern Cal) had revenues of more than $50 million and spent it all.

Even North Texas had a surplus, with revenue of $15.101 million and expenses of $13.878 million for a surplus of $1,223,000. In 2007, we had a little less surplus with over $1.6 million more revenue. Our excess last year was $913,202.

[Quoner]

Unless someone is falsifying reports to the federal government, there were only 37 Division 1-A universities that DIDN'T show a profit from athletics in 2006. All institutions report athletic revenues and expenses to the U.S. Department of Education to determine that each institution is complying with the (Gender) Equity in Athletics.

While none show losses, it's obvious that if the revenue exactly equals the expenses that the institution has made up the deficit. Further, 23 of those 37 were BCS schools. Four of those (California, Purdue, Texas Tech, and Southern Cal) had revenues of more than $50 million and spent it all.

Even North Texas had a surplus, with revenue of $15.101 million and expenses of $13.878 million for a surplus of $1,223,000. In 2007, we had a little less surplus with over $1.6 million more revenue. Our excess last year was $913,202.

I think the issue is institutional support and what it means, but I won't pretend to know enough to keep this debate going. Here is the most recent release I could find on how Fulks conducts his research.

http://www.ncaa.org/releases/research/2000110601re.htm

I saw an article that quoted the number I gave early but can't find anything to support it, so please disregard.

[Arkstfan]

Fulks doesn't count student activity fees or any money transferred from the university as athletic revenue unless he's changed his methodology from the early 90's.